Originally Posted by
Stadjer
The difference isn't nearly as big. Not just because the rider makes much more of the difference in performance, but also because the bike was almost fully developped a very long time ago. There hasn't been much room for improvement left.
For road bikes there's weight saving, but that's not really relevant for my roadster which isn't used in a mountainous area. A simular modern bike would have more gears that I don't need, and it would be a bit less heavy, which I don't care about. It would be more likely to get stolen, it would not have rodbrakes and it wouldn't be as reliable and probably wouldn't last as long, even with it's 40 years younger advantage. So my vintage bike outperforms modern bikes on the things I find important.
For all the time I've had bikes- I had 6 speeds in the rear. I figured I had no need for any more than that.
Then I did a 10 speed upgrade. **** that 6 speed bull****.
I would tend to believe that things that are more complicated are more prone to problems. However, based on the anecdotal evidence from people that I "know" on this forum- I believe a lot of the reliability and durability issues that get brought up are exaggerated as excuses (or even boogeymen) to stick with "vintage." The very real advantages of exponentially better braking and ease in pedaling make biking safer, easier and more enjoyable.